$2,500 RTX-5090 ( 60% faster than 4090 )

[KazeoHin]

Umm it is with the exception of RT.

View attachment 662003

...Which is a range of graphics settings.

Some people like to turn up graphics settings.

RT does not get an exemption just because AMD sucks at it.

 

[LukeTbk]

RT does not get an exemption just because AMD sucks at it.

Sure, but it is not like it was ever cheap to play game at 1440p, max graphic with RT on at good frame rate.

 

[MistaSparkul]

...Which is a range of graphics settings.

Some people like to turn up graphics settings.

RT does not get an exemption just because AMD sucks at it.

Ok so you're telling me you want 1440p 120fps with MAXED OUT graphics PLUS RT? Sorry but at that point that is no longer in the realm of "mid range" gaming dude. The original argument is that "mid range" gaming has gotten too expensive, but what you're describing with people loving to turn up all the graphics settings including RT and wanting triple digit frame rates ALL AT ONCE doesn't sound like mid range gaming to me.

 

[Gideon]

...Which is a range of graphics settings.

Some people like to turn up graphics settings.

RT does not get an exemption just because AMD sucks at it.

Ray Tracing is not important to everyone, and most people wanting it, are looking for the best card, not a mid range card. Why most places review with it on in one graph set and one without.

 

[MistaSparkul]

Ray Tracing is not important to everyone, and most people wanting it, are looking for the best card, not a mid range card. Why most places review with it on in one graph set and one without.

Yeah I'd say if you're looking to crank everything to max including RT, you are not a mid range gamer. 1440p 120fps with maxed out RT is something even literally a 4090 cannot do unless you resort to upscaling + frame generation.

 

[KazeoHin]

Ray Tracing is not important to everyone, and most people wanting it, are looking for the best card, not a mid range card. Why most places review with it on in one graph set and one without.

Ray tracing isn't important why?

Because...


It hurts performance?

 

[Gideon]

Ray tracing isn't important why?

Because...


It hurts performance?

Yeah it's a huge drag on performance and if your playing at 1440p or less you are usually looking for high refresh over maxing all details. Also not every game has ray tracing and if you play games that don't use it, than what's the point? Most gamers are not looking to spend over grand to play at 1440p and use ray tracing.

 

[KazeoHin]

Yeah it's a huge drag on performance and if your playing at 1440p or less you are usually looking for high refresh over maxing all details. Also not every game has ray tracing and if you play games that don't use it, than what's the point? Most gamers are not looking to spend over grand to play at 1440p and use ray tracing.

Well, then it's just like every other setting.

I agree. Most gamers aren't going to spend $1k on a video card to play 1440P 144hz. That's why gamers say video cards are overpriced right now. Not because the 4090 is expensive: because everything else has creeped up in price WAY past inflation.

1440P is a mid-range resolution now. QHD 144Hz screens cost less than 1080p 120Hz screens did when the 1070 launched. Accounting for inflation, they're ridiculously cheap. Mid-range gaming laptops come with 1440p screens at 144Hz.

1080P screens are dirt cheap, and hitting over 500Hz if you want to spend the money.
4K screens are up to 240Hz, and soon even faster.
QHD screens at 240Hz are REALLY affordable now, as well.
Buying anything other than the bargain-bin "grandma needs a new screen" models, you're GOING to be getting 120Hz, or be $15 away from it.

120Hz is considered the gaming standard now. On PC, 120FPS is the bar, 60FPS is the minimum target. Even consoles support 120Hz, and many amazing looking games are running at 60FPS. Not every game, but many. when the 1070 launched, consoles were lucky to have games that ran at 60FPS, and the idea of running beyond 60 was so silly it wasn't even technically possible.

So mid-range is firmly established as QHD (1440p) at 144FPS average, medium to high details.

and mid-range cards can't do that. The 4070 series of cards, which are NOT priced to be mid-range, instead they hold the entry way to high-end, can't do this unless you asterisk "No Ray Tracing" which is essentially saying "It can do what you just asked as long as you asked for something different" or "It can easily do the job as long as you don't have to finish the job" or "You can crank up all the settings as long as you don't crank up all the settings"

You catch my drift? RTX is literally in the name, medium RT should be possible at mid-range performance (QHD. 144FPS) on the mid-range pricepoint.. Not only can the 4070 NOT do that, but it's not mid-range. the 7900GRE is the same, only slower in RT.

So no, the 7900GRE is not a mid-range card, and it does not offer mid-range performance. It offers performance that is better compared to the cards that are out, but those cards are pretty trash for the price Nvidia is offering, and AMD is gladly following suit with pricing.

 

[LukeTbk]

So mid-range is firmly established as QHD (1440p) at 144FPS average, medium to high details.

Not for the non-fast twitch game (for which a 7900gre will do that)

Upper mid range is comfortably 60 fps at 1440p for new AAA title imo, lower mid-range is 60 fps 1440p with small compromise like FSR/DLSS if you want RT-very high graphic, low range is 1080p gaming or heavier ocmpromise 1440p:

Right now high mid-range will be around 3080/6800xt and up.

Yes there is more and more game for who RT is a setting like any other (often cannot even be turned off in them), Hellblade 2, Avatar, those either tend to assume upscaling will be used to reach 1440p and have good looking upscaled mode and will do 60fps high setting (with Rt automatticaly on) with DLSS-FSR quality on with that type of card.

There is a type of game where 144 hz is now indeed mid-range, but not the flight simulator, Plague requiem, Senuas saga or Alan wake 2 type of games, those are still 30 fps console title if you do not choose performance mode and will usually not reach 1440p even at 30fps, 60 fps on mid range PC-console with some sacrifice (like upscaling). The game people expect to play 144+fps game without a 7900xtx are made to run quite fast and a 7900gre will do it (165 average fps at call of duty modern warfare 2 at native 1440p with ultra high setting, 220 fps for rainbow six).

a RTX 4090 will not always do 144hz-1440p with everything on and it could start to be silly to say a 4090 is not even a mid-range GPU, it is an entry level one. There is no limit on how hard to run when set a ultra a game is and a good argument could be made that no game should run well at ultra when they launch (why would they, why not offer setting that only future hardware could run... only because people complain about them seem to be the reason, stuff like LOD distance, ray traced ray per pixel count and bounce, etc... could very easily have impossible to run now option possible to set without any programming work)

 

[MistaSparkul]

Well, then it's just like every other setting.

I agree. Most gamers aren't going to spend $1k on a video card to play 1440P 144hz. That's why gamers say video cards are overpriced right now. Not because the 4090 is expensive: because everything else has creeped up in price WAY past inflation.

1440P is a mid-range resolution now. QHD 144Hz screens cost less than 1080p 120Hz screens did when the 1070 launched. Accounting for inflation, they're ridiculously cheap. Mid-range gaming laptops come with 1440p screens at 144Hz.

1080P screens are dirt cheap, and hitting over 500Hz if you want to spend the money.
4K screens are up to 240Hz, and soon even faster.
QHD screens at 240Hz are REALLY affordable now, as well.
Buying anything other than the bargain-bin "grandma needs a new screen" models, you're GOING to be getting 120Hz, or be $15 away from it.

120Hz is considered the gaming standard now. On PC, 120FPS is the bar, 60FPS is the minimum target. Even consoles support 120Hz, and many amazing looking games are running at 60FPS. Not every game, but many. when the 1070 launched, consoles were lucky to have games that ran at 60FPS, and the idea of running beyond 60 was so silly it wasn't even technically possible.

So mid-range is firmly established as QHD (1440p) at 144FPS average, medium to high details.

and mid-range cards can't do that. The 4070 series of cards, which are NOT priced to be mid-range, instead they hold the entry way to high-end, can't do this unless you asterisk "No Ray Tracing" which is essentially saying "It can do what you just asked as long as you asked for something different" or "It can easily do the job as long as you don't have to finish the job" or "You can crank up all the settings as long as you don't crank up all the settings"

You catch my drift? RTX is literally in the name, medium RT should be possible at mid-range performance (QHD. 144FPS) on the mid-range pricepoint.. Not only can the 4070 NOT do that, but it's not mid-range. the 7900GRE is the same, only slower in RT.

So no, the 7900GRE is not a mid-range card, and it does not offer mid-range performance. It offers performance that is better compared to the cards that are out, but those cards are pretty trash for the price Nvidia is offering, and AMD is gladly following suit with pricing.

Then by your definition a 4090 is only a mid range card because that's really the only GPU that can do 1440p at high settings at 144fps with medium RT without resorting to any upscaling and that honestly makes zero sense. RT is way too demanding to be considered a part of mid range gaming, even a 4090 will start struggling if you crank it up even at just 1440p. And if that's just mid range gaming then WTF is high end gaming? Native 4K at 240fps maxed graphics settings with full on path tracing? Not a single GPU today or in the next few years will be capable of that. But if that's your definition of mid range gaming then yeah sure I can see why you'd be mad about GPU pricing and performance, because nothing can possibly satisfy your criteria if that's where you're setting the bar. Other people who have a different perspective on what mid range gaming is will be plenty happy with a 7900GRE.

 

[KazeoHin]

Then by your definition a 4090 is only a mid range card because that's really the only GPU that can do 1440p at high settings at 144fps with medium RT without resorting to any upscaling and that honestly makes zero sense.

I said medium-high all settings

and not every game, just an average across many.

But you do make a good point. It's as if video cards are overpriced....

 

[MistaSparkul]

Not for the non-fast twitch game (for which a 7900gre will do that)

mid range is comfortably 60 fps at 1440p for new AAA title imo:

View attachment 662050View attachment 662051

3080/6800 and up.

Yes there is more and more game for who RT is a setting like any other (often cannot even be turned off in them), Hellblade 2, Avatar, those either tend to assume upscaling will be used to reach 1440p and have good looking upscaled mode and will do 60fps high setting (with Rt automatticaly on) with DLSS-FSR quality on with that type of card.

There is a type of game where 144 hz is now indeed mid-range, but not the flight simulator, Plague requiem, Senuas saga or Alan wake 2 type of games, those are still 30 fps console title if you do not choose performance mode and will usually not reach 1440p even at 30fps, 60 fps on mid range PC-console with some sacrifice (like upscaling).

a RTX 4090 will not always do 144hz-1440p with everything on and it could start to be silly to say a 4090 is not even a mid-range GPU, it is an entry level one. There is no limit on how hard to run when set a ultra a game is and a good argument could be made that no game should run well at ultra when they launch (why would they, why not offer setting that only future hardware could run... only because people complain about them seem to be the reason, stuff like LOD distance, ray traced ray per pixel count and bounce, etc... could very easily have impossible to run now option possible to set without any programming work)

Yeah by his definition of mid range gaming, an RTX 4090 would be considered mid range and that is just silly.

 

[MistaSparkul]

I said medium-high all settings

and not every game, just an average across many.

But you do make a good point. It's as if video cards are overpriced....

medium-high settings at 144fps WITH medium RT as well. Only a 4090 can do that, so is a 4090 mid range then?

 

[KazeoHin]

medium-high settings at 144fps WITH medium RT as well. Only a 4090 can do that, so is a 4090 mid range then?

A 4080 can do that too, 144fps is an average goal, 60FPS minimum.

 

[LukeTbk]

144fps is an average goal

The idea that 144fps is the average gamer goal for a game like Hogwarts Legacy or last of us I feel would be massively disproved would we have access to people setting choice.

I will speak for me here, but for game like that, not my goal fps and my 3070 GPU I would still consider that in the lower mid-range performance GPUs.

When digital foundry make optimized setting this month, they often use a 2070 super as the target example, less than 32% of steam user are on 1440p or higher.

A 4080 can do that too, 144fps is an average goal, 60FPS minimum.

Depend on the game:

Alan wake 2 is with RT off here, RT on (not path tracing) a 4090 will have an hard time keeping it above 60 all the time at native 1440p.

Running at 144hz for game made to run at 30 fps on a 52 rdna 2 cu Xbox-X at 1200-1400p and with higher details expectation at the same time.. lot of pc games are not made with 144hz with high details for mid-range gamer in mind, the second mid-range gamers would have GPU to do it, game would look bigger and better and would drop down at 60 fps with that new hardware at high setting again.